Help me automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis for this statement: 

Politicians are wrong to support the cap-and-trade auction system.

Reasons to agree:

1. Cap and trade may put US businesses at a disadvantage if other countries, like China and India, do not participate.
2. Cap and trade has not been very successful in Europe.
3. Direct investment in clean technology may be more effective than punishing old technology.
4. A cost-benefit analysis of global warming should be conducted before implementing harsh measures.
5. Cap and trade would require significant regulation, new agencies, and overhead costs.
6. Emission taxes may be a simpler and more economically efficient alternative.
7. Permit prices in a cap-and-trade system may be unstable and unpredictable.
8. Cap and trade systems tend to pass the quota rent to businesses.
9. Cap and trade systems could result in large international transfers of wealth.
10. Cap and trade systems are seen to generate more corruption than a tax system.
11. The administration and legal costs of cap-and-trade systems are higher than with a tax.
12. A cap-and-trade system is seen to be impractical at the level of individual household emissions. 

Reasons to agree:

1. Markets can be used to promote good behavior and punish bad behavior.
2. The transfer of wealth from polluters to non-polluters provides incentives for polluting firms to change.
3. Cap and trade systems create a clear limit on emissions and allow for flexibility in how companies achieve reductions.
4. A well-designed cap-and-trade system can be an effective tool in reducing greenhouse gas emission

2. Identify Interests

Interests of those who agree:

1. Protecting US businesses from unfair competition
2. Ensuring that global efforts to combat climate change are effective and equitable
3. Minimizing the costs and bureaucratic burden of implementing emissions reduction policies

Interests of those who disagree:

1. Using market mechanisms to incentivize emissions reductions
2. Providing flexibility for companies to achieve emissions reductions in the most cost-effective way
3. Establishing a clear limit on overall emissions to address climate change

Shared interests:

1. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the impacts of climate change
2. Implementing effective and efficient policies to achieve emissions reductions
3. Minimizing the economic impact of emissions reduction policies on businesses and consumers

3. Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of the Belief

1. The effectiveness of cap-and-trade systems in reducing emissions compared to alternative policies
2. The economic impact of cap-and-trade systems on businesses and consumers
3. The level of international participation and coordination in implementing cap-and-trade systems

4. Analyze Underlying Issues and Root Causes

1. The global nature of climate change and the need for coordinated international action
2. The balance between environmental protection and economic growth
3. The role of market mechanisms in addressing environmental challenges

5. Identify Unstated Assumptions

1. Assuming that cap-and-trade systems are the only or best way to reduce emissions
2. Assuming that the costs of implementing cap-and-trade systems outweigh the benefits
3. Assuming that other countries will not take action to reduce emissions if the US does not lead with a cap-and-trade system

6. Propose Top-rated Solutions

1. Develop a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of global warming and various emissions reduction policies, including cap-and-trade systems and alternative approaches
2. Engage in international negotiations to establish a coordinated global framework for reducing emissions, ensuring that all major emitters participate
3. Implement a hybrid approach that combines elements of cap-and-trade with other policies, such as direct investment in clean technology and targeted regulations

7. Conduct Cost-Benefit Analysis

Potential Costs of Agreeing:

• Economic: Reduced competitiveness of US businesses if other countries do not implement similar policies (Moderate likelihood, High impact)
• Environmental: Missed opportunities to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change impacts (Moderate likelihood, High impact)

Potential Benefits of Agreeing:

• Economic: Lower costs for businesses and consumers compared to alternative emissions reduction policies (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)
• Political: Increased public support for emissions reduction efforts by addressing concerns about the cap-and-trade system (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Costs of Disagreeing:

• Environmental: Continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated climate change impacts (High likelihood, High impact)
• Economic: Higher costs for businesses and consumers if cap-and-trade system is poorly designed or implemented (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Benefits of Disagreeing:

• Environmental: Effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through a well-designed cap-and-trade system (Moderate likelihood, High impact)
• Economic: Increased investment and innovation in clean technologies driven by market incentives (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)

8. Identify Key Resources

Best Supporting Evidence (Agreeing):

• Studies showing the limited effectiveness of cap-and-trade systems in reducing emissions in Europe
• Economic analyses demonstrating the potential costs and competitiveness impacts of cap-and-trade on US businesses

Best Weakening Evidence (Disagreeing):

• Research indicating the potential for cap-and-trade systems to drive significant emissions reductions when well-designed
• Case studies of successful cap-and-trade programs in reducing emissions and promoting clean technology investment

Most Credible Supporters (Agreeing):

• Economists and policy experts who advocate for alternative emissions reduction policies, such as carbon taxes or direct regulation
• Business leaders and industry groups concerned about the competitiveness impacts of cap-and-trade on US firms

Most Credible Opposers (Disagreeing):

• Environmental scientists and climate policy experts who support cap-and-trade as an effective tool for reducing emissions
• Progressive politicians and advocacy groups who see cap-and-trade as a key component of a comprehensive climate action plan

9. Analyze Values and Ethics

Values and Ethics of those who agree:

• Prioritizing economic growth and competitiveness
• Valuing certainty and simplicity in policy design
• Emphasizing the importance of global cooperation and equity in addressing climate change

Values and Ethics of those who disagree:

• Prioritizing environmental protection and climate action
• Valuing the role of market mechanisms in driving behavior change
• Emphasizing the urgency of reducing emissions and the potential for cap-and-trade to deliver significant reductions

10. Review Supporting Media

Supporting the Statement:

• Documentaries or news articles highlighting the challenges and limitations of cap-and-trade systems in Europe
• Opinion pieces by economists or business leaders advocating for alternative emissions reduction policies

Opposing the Statement:

• Infographics or data visualizations showing the potential emissions reductions achievable through cap-and-trade systems
• News stories or case studies showcasing successful examples of cap-and-trade programs in reducing emissions and driving clean technology investment

11. Explore Alternative Framings

• "A well-designed cap-and-trade system, as part of a comprehensive climate action plan, can be an effective tool for reducing emissions while providing flexibility and market incentives for businesses."
• Equivalency score: Low
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: Moderate
• % strength: Moderate
• % specificity: High
• "Policymakers should carefully consider the costs and benefits of cap-and-trade systems alongside other emissions reduction policies, engaging in international negotiations to ensure a coordinated and equitable global approach."
• Equivalency score: Moderate
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: Moderate
• % strength: High
• % specificity: High